in70mm.com Mission:
• To record the history of the large format movies and the 70mm cinemas
as remembered by the people who worked with the films. Both during
making and during running the films in projection rooms and as the
audience, looking at the curved screen.•
in70mm.com, a unique internet based magazine, with articles about 70mm
cinemas, 70mm people, 70mm films, 70mm sound, 70mm film credits, 70mm
history and 70mm technology. Readers and fans of 70mm are always welcome
to contribute.

Stanley Kubrick

TH: OK, let’s devote the last 15 minutes to
say, Stanley Kubrick...shooting "2001" on 65mm, and the challenges –

Sir Sydney: Well, with Panavision came a lot of huge business benefits. It
introduced us to the biggest filmmakers in the world – anyone who was going
to make a movie in Europe –and they were in the budget class that they would
like to use Panavision as a matter of course. They would all come to us. The
first deal we discussed was when Bob Gottschalk didn’t even deign to tell me
what the financial split deal would be if we handled Panavision in Britain.

So all these Cameramen – do you know about James Wong Howe? – he came once
to Samuelson’s in Cricklewood Broadway and I showed him around – I forget
what picture he was going to do – I don’t think it was in the UK, it was in
Germany or somewhere like that. And he appreciated what he saw; he loved all
the staff people who were so enthusiastic about what they did, even if they
were just checking out tripods. They loved being in our business – I think I
can say that, without exaggerating. And when he was leaving – we had just
brought out what we call a Limpet mount, a big “sucker” you applied to any
shiny surface: pane of glass, window, tiles – and it had a camera head on
it, so you could stick it on the side of a car, we’ll say, and mount your
camera there; and it had a ball head on it – we called it the “Samuelson
Limpet Mount”.

Everybody now has limpets I should think, every Camera Supplier’s now has
limpets – but
ours was the first, and my brother David had worked it out and found a
supplier of large – I should think about 8-inch – rubber limpets, each with
a lever handle affixed. We also made up a wooden platform, about 12 inches
square, and mounted on it this limpet mount. We had plate glass front doors
to the company and we mounted it on them, about a foot off the ground. Jimmy
Wong Howe stood on our Limpet Mount with his arms folded like this
[Gestures]. We would never have got people of that calibre to our company
without Panavision’s name attached to ours.

Now of course Stanley Kubrick came on our scene.

Joe
Dunton in Bradford, 2011

I think I might say there was mutual dislike between Panavision’s Gottschalk
and Stanley Kubrick, who was uncompromising in any way, and knew better than
anybody. And most of what he felt he knew better, he did know better – but
was a bit nutty with it! Difficult...my word! And if he could possibly avoid
using Panavision, he would. And that was why Bob – part of his personality
was he wouldn’t lower himself to say, “I saw the latest Kubrick picture, it
was very well shot”. Bob, with his kind of personality, couldn’t do that – I
could do it, even if I didn’t like the bloke, I could still say, “But my
goodness what a marvellous movie”. But Bob couldn’t – he would say, “Oh it’s
nothing special”. Then,
"2001: A Space Odyssey" came up. And Kubrick
and I had become quite good friends. But he had collected equipment of his
own and therefore he only ever came to see me if there anything new coming
along that he didn’t know about. But it was only at his convenience; if
there was something he wanted, and we were the only place he could see it,
then he would come to us. We never had a row. He never disagreed about
paying his bills, or anything like that. He was never a “good” customer. He
and Joe Dunton were very
close friends. Joe is a fantastic techie as you know, marvellous engineer,
knows a great deal about cinematography, every aspect of it – special
effects, anything you want to talk about – and he runs a very good camera
company. He was pirated away from us by our major competitor, who hadn’t got
a Camera Department.

Kubrick would only ever come to see us at night. He was a bit strange – you
know his home in Borehamwood was like a fortress, and I don’t know if he
actually had live guards – it’s nothing unusual to have security rooms in
America, and live security guards for these celebrities – very, very wealthy
people. I understand that you couldn't just walk up to his front door and
ring the bell – and that’s only local, in Borehamwood, 5 miles away – but he
would only come to Cricklewood in the evening.

So to meet Stanley, I would have to hang around at the Office, and then he
would stay a couple of hours and he would look at anything we’d had that was
new. He would then, if he could, go out and buy it. We never did a picture
for him, except "2001", and that was because he hadn’t got 65mm gear
of his own.

He took Panavision equipment on sufferance – I bet he and Bob did not
discuss anything at any time about the film – he would have dealt with Bob’s
staff rather than meet him; I think I could be pretty sure of that. And, for
"2001" Stanley said, “I shall want the equipment for about four weeks
beforehand, and I shall want alternative lenses at each focal length. And I
will choose which I’m going to use”. That meant equipment was going to be
supplied through us. Now you would expect to supply the equipment free of
charge for a week – that’s enough time – normally! – to check out all the
lenses, all the focus scales, everything; every kind of check that you want
to make. But Stanley wanted it for four weeks. And I suppose Bob – nobody
moves in Panavision without Bob’s approval – I suppose Bob approved: “Well,
it would still be good to have a Stanley Kubrick picture...whatever kind of
a sod he is, it will be prestigious to have a Stanley Kubrick picture...shot
in Panavision 65mm”.

And the Cameraman was one of the greatest British Cameramen of all
time...that was Geoff Unsworth – what a lovely man.

Anyway, this is what Stanley did: he had a set built, and built into the set
was a lens focus chart – I think it was about that size [Gestures]. And
also, a television monitor. And at the end of the wire, feeding that
television monitor, was a video camera with a pack shot lens on it, one that
would focus down to about two inches of the lens scale. And then he would
have two smaller focus boards at different distances from the main focus
board, so that he could measure the depth of field. One say 3 feet behind,
and one 3 feet in front, or maybe 2 feet in front. So on the monitor he had
a picture of where the setting on the lens scale was. When he saw the rushes
he could see which focus setting looked best, knowing that the correct focus
would be 8 feet – we’ll say. And he could see if it was absolutely, as they
say, “on the money”: the main focus board, pin-sharp at 8 feet, and the
depth of field for the two other focus boards.

But then, he would do perhaps four other tests on the same lens, everything
the same, but with a different setting on the focus. So he would go say, to
8 feet 6, and even, 9 feet, and then he’d go to 7 foot 3 and 7 foot 6 and
photograph all those. So you could see actually whether the lens was
sharper. If it wasn’t – in other words, if the scale on the lens, engraved
on the lens, was marked up absolutely pin-sharp on the number – that’s why
he wanted them for four weeks, just for testing.

Anyway, with the obvious approval of Geoff Unsworth, the Assistant – who
became an Oscar-winning Cameraman – lit some pictures for Stanley later.
Really an Arriflex man, John Alcott, BSC was an Assistant at that time, but
was given a break by Kubrick because of course Kubrick was a Cameraman
himself.And I remember that film, it was "Barry Lyndon", an 18th-century
period piece – and Stanley Kubrick was determined to photograph a candle-lit
scene where the light of the actual candles was the only illuminant. And
he’d found one or two or three f1, yes f1, lenses! And the artists had to do
everything without moving, forwards or backwards even an inch, because there
was no depth of field at all! But it was at f1 – Kubrick liked that!

Anyway, that’s how we came to do "2001". It became an iconic film.
Many people have said, who are not necessarily technicians, “Oh, what a
boring film”. But of course the music was also so important to that film,
for which Stanley paid nothing, when you come to think of it!

But he was such a clever man...

I’m not in favour of everything that he did, like "Clockwork Orange"
– that’s not Cinema for me. But then, I’m really old-fashioned. And when I
do movie quizzes sometimes – and I have a movie quiz that will confirm what
I just said – I've got a reel of ten clips where I say, “To be sexy, you
don’t have to be explicit”. Is explicit a good word for you? I've got ten
clips where you see absolutely nothing at all. And I suppose my favourite
one is from that film "Tom Jones" - the eating scene – do you know the one
where they’re –

TH: I haven’t seen the film in many, many years...is that the one with
Albert Finney?

"Tom Jones" and one point

Sir Sydney: Yes, Albert Finney and Joyce
Redman – and all it is, is the couple absolutely –

would obviously prefer to be in bed together, but they’re nevertheless
sitting in like, a pub restaurant. And they’ve got chicken – legs of
chicken...and lobster – and all it is, is when he’s eating the chicken –
he’s not thinking about what he’s eating, he’s thinking about what’s she
going to be like in bed! [Laughs] And the same looks from her...there’s no
dialogue, and it’s just what’s in one’s mind. You’ll get it out of the
library and have a look at it – it’s interesting. I could talk to you about
how that happened, to be the first real feature film that we serviced, shot
entirely with an Arriflex. When we got the new-fangled blimped Arriflex –
which was never very good for keeping the noise in, because, as my brother
David puts it, the trouble with an Arriflex is you can’t blimp a noisy
camera – you’ve got to design a quiet camera and then blimp that. And the
Arriflex un-blimped sounded like a coffee grinder to start off with!

I must just quickly tell you about the producers of that movie, they were
good friends, a company called Woodfall. Not low budget, but they didn’t
waste any money, I can tell you – we used to service their pictures and we
were really good friends. They came to see me and said, “Normally we get the
Mitchell from the studio – tell us about the new blimp you’ve got – is it
right you can use an Arriflex? We could shoot our next picture, "Tom
Jones", on an Arriflex?” I said, “Well you could, and the blimp is quite
good, but it would be good if it’s in the Winter, so that everyone could
take their coats off and throw them over the blimp to try and keep that last
bit of noise in there!” And I said, “You’ve also got to keep in mind that
you have to re-load every four minutes instead of every ten minutes, so if
you’re in the middle of a dialogue scene you’re liable to have someone
shouting ‘Camera needs re–loading!’ That’s going to happen two-and-a-half
times more often than using a Mitchell – expensive”. Anyway they said, “Well
what we would like to do is, you supply us with the new Arriflex and
everything else of course, but we don’t want you to Invoice us, we’re going
to give you 1% – we’re going to give you 1 point”. I said, “What does that
mean?” “1% of the profit of the picture”.

When I usually tell this story Thomas, I haven’t usually revealed it’s
"Tom Jones" – which became best Oscar–winning picture of the year! And
must have made an absolute bloody fortune. And I tell that story because I
think it’s the worst business decision I ever made! I remember saying to
Leigh Aman, the Production Controller, I said, “Leigh, I understand what
you’re saying – I don’t invoice, but I’ve got one point – meanwhile, how do
I pay my hire purchase? Every month I’ve got to pay the hire purchase
payment because I wouldn’t be able to go buy that blimped Arriflex for cash,
the whole thing – I’ve got a hire purchase payment on it, and I have to pay
every month! How do I do that if I don’t invoice?” And he said, “Yeah, that
would be a problem”. And at the end of it they did say to us, “We found some
money so we will be able to pay your bills every two weeks as usual”. And
they did, but I didn’t have the 1%! [Laughs]

TH: Thank you very much – I want to thank you of course for taking the time
out. It’s been so interesting, and I’m sure we can talk a lot more.

Sir Sydney: Well I hope you’ll come back!

TH: Let’s consider this the beginning!

Part Two – Monday 28 January 2012

TH: Yes – now it’s Saturday 28th January
2012...As I wrote in my notes last time we parted...We ended up talking
about Stanley Kubrick and "2001: A Space Odyssey", and his need for
having the cameras for four weeks rather than one week I think, to test
them, particularly the lenses.
Sir Sydney: That’s right...and did we go into the way he did his lens tests?

TH: We did that – with the cameras and three feet and the depth of field,
and all these things with the lenses... and then we continued and you talked
about John Alcott, and we proceeded to "Barry Lyndon", where some
sequences were filmed only with actual candlelight.

Sir Sydney: He found an f1 lens...the actors had to have a steady
out-of-sight piece of wood behind them to keep their head at the right
distance because there was no depth of field at f1 at all.

Jan
Jacobsen with his own 3D rig and Arriflex cameras captured by Gerhard
Fromm's camera

TH: I heard somewhere that he knew about a Norwegian lens designer –
Jan
Jacobsen – Do you recall this name? Jan Jacobsen?

TH: Yes, on my website there is the full story about Jan Jacobsen, written
by
Gerhard Fromm, who I
interviewed – because Gerhard Fromm has a history with MCS 70, the West
German 70mm format they made in ’62 –

But Jan made the cameras for
MCS 70 and IMAX,
and he was a wizard – and he also worked for Arriflex making their zoom
lenses – anamorphic zoom lenses.

What he did was he put the anamorphics behind the lens so you could zoom –
before that you couldn’t make as I understand, anamorphic zoom lenses.

Sir Sydney: You don’t know about what year we’re talking about?

TH: This is the early ´60s -

Sir Sydney: Early ‘60s...yes...because Panavision zoom lenses – anamorphic
zoom lenses – were mostly based on the Cooke 5 to 1 high quality zoom. I
think it was 20-100mm – that was the lens on which Panavision based their
zoom lens. Of course it became 40-200mm in focal length when they’d made it
anamorphic – and as I understood it, although Bob Gottschalk was very
secretive (even to me) on that – he never talked to me about it – I’m pretty
sure the anamorphic elements were all made in Japan. And that’s how
Panavision was able to bring out, early on, a good-quality anamorphic zoom
lens, based on the Cooke 5 to 1.

A lot of the Panavision prime – the prime part of their lenses – from since
almost the start of Panavision, Inc., were based on Cooke lenses after
maximum testing. But then, later, just after Bob died, the executive (Jac
Holzman) who took over, who had come from Warner Bros – Warner Bros by that
time owned Panavision – he went to Leitz in Canada, and they designed a
series of prime lenses, only for Panavision. They must have been to
Panavision’s specification – and I forget what they’re called, but it’s
something like Super Panalux – but they were excellent spherical lenses –
excellent. And I think they were all made by Leitz, Canada. And so you could
book a Panaflex camera and book say, six lenses, and they’d all have the
same technical background. And that overcame the problem that you had with
the use of lenses from different sources, because it wasn’t only the quality
say of the definition –
the focus, the contrast – you had to deal with the colour temperature. And
so you could have two lenses, say one was from Cooke and one was from Zeiss
– and they’d both be very good lenses. But if you used them on a movie, and
took one lens off and changed it for a focal length of a different make,
when you saw the rushes there was maybe a blue bias on one of the lenses,
and a yellow bias on the other – I don’t mean heavy colour, but you had to
depend on your grader, in post-production, to sort out where different
lenses had been used. Well, having this set of Leitz lenses I think solved
that problem. What the story is of the original optics today I really don’t
know.

TH: I just heard it many years ago that Jan Jacobsen made this extremely
fast lens that NASA used for taking pictures in outer space or something,
and Stanley Kubrick got hold of one of these lenses somehow, and then he
could make the film as he intended to do, in candlelight, because in those
days (the period of the picture) there were no electric lights – so
everything had to be lit according to how it was in
17-hundred-and-something, when the story of Barry Lyndon takes place. I just
heard the story about Stanley Kubrick and Jan Jacobsen, so it would be
interesting if you could actually connect the story – if you knew about that
–

Sir Sydney: No...I didn’t know about that - I have got a story about
"Barry Lyndon"...Kubrick – who hardly ever went anywhere – he never
socialised at all; he hardly left his home – he had a paranoia about
security...he lived in Borehamwood – Elstree – about 15 miles from here. He
never went anywhere abroad, because he wouldn’t fly – he had a fear of
flying – and so once he’d come here, he stayed here! And as far as I know,
he never went back to America; he never went to any awards ceremonies; he
never gave interviews, as far as I know – people would talk about him;
people worked with him; but I don’t think he wanted to be publicised in any
respect.